Willravel

It's not the case I'm making. DK is making that case, so it's he that you should bring this up with. Frankly, I don't have a dog in that fight.
Just because you're armed doesn't mean you stand a snowball's chance in hell against people with superior fire power and that are highly organized.
I would have said the same of the ATF and FBI before Waco. I would have been wrong.

samcol

I don't get it, you're saying we shouldn't be armed because there isn't a snowballs chance in hell we could win?

Just because you think the people couldn't win, why would you restrict their right to bear arms. I dont understand your logic at all.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Willravel

Second time, I'm just shooting down his argument, not making one to support my side. DK argues that the populace should be armed so as to fight the military should we ever fall under tyrannical rule. I said that's not how it works. I'm not arguing for gun control, but against guns for everyone.

samcol

Ok, I guess I understand your argument now. However, you're saying you are against guns for everyone while the only ones being restricted guns rights are citizens and not the government? (police, military, etc.)

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Willravel

Actually it's both. Citizens should have a phased stand down (meaning that the most dangerous weapons are retired on both sides at the same time) with the police as they shift over to non-lethals, and the military should have a phased stand down with other major world militaries, all verified by UN weapons inspectors, starting with nuclear weapons. We need to do our best, within reason, to un-ring some of the bells we've rung so far as horrible weapons.

host

<h2>Achtung !</h2>

This can only happening because the people do not have enough guns, not because they have too many! (...and I am in favor of gun control in densely populated areas...I think it works well in NYC....but this story is outrageous)

Mojo_PeiPei

Please forgive me for jumping so late into this fight, coming off another hiatus...

Samcol, I don't think I have ever been in agreement with you, but I support this statement probably more than you do.

Seeing Will's follow up, that it is somehow up to the UN or some other Bureaucratic body to determine who should have weapons or at any capacity is redonkculous.

Why is the UN a disorganized body, or for that matter any formal matter any govermental body allowed to tell us what we can or cannot own as matters of weapons? Seriously. What purpose does the Bill of Rights stand? It seems people like to interpret it into modern times when it serves as a means to their political ends. Militias no longer exist, should the populace disarm?

This is the most asinine argument I have met. Why should I not have the right to own any weapon the government possesses? Since when has any goverment known whats best for 'the people'?

I suppose by many peoples logic, the 3rd amendment is invalid as it really has no place in our modern times.

You know what, I'll end it here. IN the context of our times, you tell me what a Militia means, if it goes against the concept of a citizenry armed, I might consider the fact we don't have the right to carry weapons.

Also for the record... I hope I read it right, but Hosts article is awesome.

Really, for all the boogeymen I hear coming up on this board I think the bottom line of the above article is telling as to why the second amendment should stand un-infringed.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

pan6467

I didn't mean anything by that DK, other than I don't think our forefathers who wrote and passed this amendment expected Uzis, automatic rifles, guns capable of going through brick walls, bullets that explode on impact, etc.

While I have come to be pro-gun, I am not sure how far I want to go with it. I realize that if you want an illegal gun or illegal bullets they are easy to come by, but I'm not sure legalizing them is in our best interest either.

I feel if the government did rise and some fought back even with Glocks, rifles and so on, that it would create enough noise to stop the government's move.

However, Waco and especially Ruby Ridge shows what the government can be capable of. In those events the government had far more fire power. And I believe always will. You pull out a glock they have an MK... you pull out an MK they pull out a bazooka... and so on... the government will always win firepowerwise.

That being the case, how much firepower do you need to protect your home and what is too much? That is the big question.

As for stockpiling for a Martial Law type government takeover.... I feel that would be best done in an underground militia type banding of like minded people. Rather than have just 1 person be over armed with "illegal" weapons.

I think that part of the 2nd amendment makes this acceptable. It clearly states: Thus, a "private" militia built of citizens that has structure and is solely for the purpose to protect the people from government abuse, should be allowed as it is our Constitutional right and perhaps these days we should have them prominently in every state. The governor could even name the head of the militia based on a list of nominees given by the militia. Those would be the places for the extreme armaments.

The government claims states do have "militias" but they somehow seem to be called "the (insert state here) National Guard" and are not independent but rather a "part-time" division of a Federal armed force (Army, Air Force, etc). I do not believe this is what the founding fathers deemed a "militia" necessary to the security of a free state. This became a way for the Federal government to control them and basically destroy the idea of independent state and citizen controlled militias. I believe we need these back if for no other reason than to put fear into government that it is truly being watched by the people and needs to be truly honest with the people.

Do I see this being allowed? Unfortunately, no. The government is too paranoid to allow it and there is that group of citizens that go giddy when rights get taken away that would demand government do something to stop these militias.

The question then is, why is government so paranoid that they would never allow these militias to be formed?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Mojo_PeiPei

Sorry, Pan made the point roughly. The FF's could not fathom a great many things, I think that point spreads from weapons to social issues. All the same, I do not think they would be all that hyped with a federal government that was so restricting and overpowering as things are now.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

pan6467

That is true. Nor could they fathom a government so tentacled and becoming so corrupted and influenced by lobbyists, media, nations outside of our own. I think the vast majority of them would be ashamed of the government we have today.

I do believe though that the battle between people believing in the people and wanting more freedom and those wanting to take freedoms to feel "safe" has been a battle in our country since day 1.

I find it somewhat hypocritical and odd that the same people accusing our country of torture, among conspiracy theories, grabs for power and demanding we end the war are usually the same people arguing that we need gun control and that citizens should not be legally armed in any way.

I still have yet to hear 1 good argument on how we, the people, will maintain the rights we enjoy without the threat of an armed populace.


These last 2 posts (well your edit) of ours were happening simultaneously I think....lol.

We seem to have similar thoughts at the same time.....

Scary, never thought this would happen between us... must be the recent full moon.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

dksuddeth

will, i appreciate your attempt at 'shooting down' my argument, but I think you seriously overestimate our military and are extremely underestimating the american public at large. If you truly believe that 12 to 18 MILLION have no chance against even the total cooperation of the military strength at 4 million, then there seems to be no reasoning with you in that sense. Not that you don't have the ability to, I just feel that you're not truly seeing the numbers correctly.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Strawman. I never said it was up to them to determine who should have weapons at all, not even close. Sometimes I think members are just arguing with themselves or their own dopplegangers.

What I said is that the parties who would disarm decide on what to give up and the UN acts simply as referee. They make no decisions, but rather simply make sure no one is cheating.
If you think that 12-18 million people would get involved in an American revolution in this period in history, you must be hopped up on goof balls. It'd probably be a lot closer to tens of thousands, if that. I'll tell you what: you make me a list of everyone who openly attacked the US government after the incident at Waco.

And there would be no central organization, but rather it would be groups of friends, and even though some would be ex-military or law enforcement, the odds of them having the organizational skills overall to do anything is laughable. We'd probably get a dozen or so minor victories for the populace, see them quelled, and then it'd be the government using them to demonize the resistance and also using it as an excuse to crack down on what little liberties we have left.

dksuddeth

this sounds familiar also. It sounds like several of the arguments given around 1775. But that seemed to work out ok in the end, didn't it?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

samcol

It's kinda like saying we should do away with the first amendment because the government is so corrupt we can't affect change by utilizing the 1st anymore. I just don't understand attacking the 2nd amendment from that angle at all.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

Willravel

Fortunately, I already anticipated this argument, and responded to it:
People in the 1700s weren't insanely lazy and lethargic. They didn't have American Idol to appease them and distract them from the problems in their country.

pan6467

I'm not sure people are "insanely lazy and lethargic". I would argue more and more people are starting to come out of their stasis and pay attention to what's going on.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

Willravel

Would they pick up guns and fight against the police or military, thought, is the question. And the answer, at least for now, is absolutely not. We've already got illegal domestic spying, kidnapping and torturing of people, prison without trials, mass media control, endless wars over control of natural resources, etc. Just when do these revolutionists come out of the woodwork? When does DK open fire?

dksuddeth

I 'open fire' when/if they come for me, my family, or friends and neighbors. I'll consider widening that range of people when I can see more people doing the same.

The problem is that we've been conditioned for 80 years to trust and rely on the government, that it's taking along time to show that people need to distrust the government. Hell, look at yourself will. You still believe that there are things that only the government can do, or must do, to ensure public safety, or your safety. This is a mindset that a free people must be able to step away from, but until a majority can do that, we'll still be faced with the soccer moms/dads who will balk at anything other than sanctioned government protection.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

If fellow revolutionists follow the same line of thought, then we'll just have isolated incidents where the police overpower one person in a house at a time. So either you have to assume the responsibility of not just defending your family, friends and local n neighbors, but all of your countrymen... or the revolution simply cannot and will not happen until they infringe on a very small neighborhood.

In 2005, when hurricane Katrina hit the SouthEast, gun confiscation by the government was widespread. Did you or any other Second Amendment proponent do anything about it? Did anyone, except for some journalists and bloggers? Of course not. So when "they" came for people's guns, nothing happened. Even leaving gun confiscation out for a minute, it was back in August of 2006 when Bush proposed extending Guantanamo practices of indefinite detention and summary trial by military commissions to include American citizens. AMERICAN CITIZENS! In response, revolutionaries stormed military bases across the nation.... oh wait nothing happened.

The Second Amendment, as a function of governmental control, only works when the gun owners are able to stand up to the government with their guns and force them to do the will of the people. That's simply not the case, therefore defending the Second Amendment on the basis that without it gun owners wouldn't be able to keep the government in check is completely incorrect.
DK, you know I don't trust the government. I'd like to see the entire Bush Administration behind bars. I'd like nothing more than to completely reorganize half of all the federal organizations from the FBI to FEMA.

We just happen to disagree on guns. In other words, there but for said disagreements go I.

Baraka_Guru

I think you need to add at least one zero to the end of that. Maybe more.

Reliance on government is a given. All else is anarchy.

Trust is another issue.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

j8ear

Here's a heads up...the last days of this Supreme Court Session are approaching (only the SCOTUS itself knows when that is, but history places it usually around this time), and one of the cases remaining to be decided is Heller.

It is also worth noting that Justice Scalia is the only justice without a majority opinion from the march sitting when the Heller case was argued.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

dksuddeth

Looks like DC needs a smackdown by the courts again.

heller denied permit for handgun

From the article -

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

jorgelito

How is this even possible? I thought the court ruling was very clear?

dksuddeth

it was indeed clear. DC is only trying to muddy the waters and delay things as long as possible, while making it seem dangerous for residents to register semi-autos (they are still 'illegal'), well, they are going to get smacked. The courts ruling was very clear.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ScottKuma

You have to wonder if DC is doing this in the hopes that the next incarnation of the supreme court (i.e., after the next justice retires) is more pro-gun control... They seem to be trying to delay as long as they can - and for what? That have to know that they're going to be overturned...and one would think that such an overturn would be an unpopular move in the eyes of their constituency.

Or do they just not care?

__________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take from you everything you have.

GoogleMap Me

ipollux

If it was my world, guns, bombs and every other type of weapon would cease to exist. Testosterone-filled macho men would be forced to conduct themselves as intellectuals or be locked up. Sounds horrible doesn't? What a nightmare it would be not to be able to dress up like commando and go target practicing and get hard on.

The_Dunedan

I doubt it. SCOTUS left the door wiiiiiiide open for almost any kind of regulation short of a total ban. If DC wants to limit "legal handguns" to 5-shot revolvers manufactured by Colt, and make the permit to keep one cost $100,000 they can do just that.

Because in your world the physically weak being at the mercy of the physically strong is a good thing? I take it you've never been in a fight with someone who significantly outweighed you. Now bear in mind that the average female is 30% lighter, 5 inches shorter, and has 25% less skeletal muscle mass than the average man. I guess "rapist" is a good career choice in your world.

Baraka_Guru

On the topic of guns and rape, I wonder how many women are willing to use a gun on close friends and family members.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

The_Dunedan

If he's trying to rape them, I'd imagine -quite- willing, unless the "lie-back-and-enjoy-it" ethic of the anti-self-defense lobbies in this country has gotten into their heads. I don't have a discreet number for the amount of attempted rapes halted through firearms use on a yearly basis, but I'll see what I can find.

dc_dux

I dont think it was clear at all.

Scalia, writing for the majority, said: "The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem (guns and crime), including some measures regulating handguns."

The DC city attorney has determined that it is with the city's purview to classify semi-autos as something other than a handgun for purposes of regulation. It may very well go back to the courts.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

The_Dunedan

The problem is that they're retroactively classified semi-automatic weapons as fully-automatic weapons, all laws of physics and technical data to the contrary notwithstanding. They've simply renamed something, calling it something it clearly is not, in order to keep disarming as many victims as possible.

dc_dux

I guess that will be for the courts to decide....in another 5 years or so.

It appears to me that DC is abiding by the letter of the law "including some measures regulating handguns."

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

ipollux

No, I've never been in a fight at all. I move in different circles than such animals, so I don't think in terms of fighting. I'm glad you have your weapons to protect you.

The_Dunedan

If we're lucky, it took -how- long to get from Miller to Heller? And of course, there's always the risk that a less-leftist court would worsen the situation in a new hearing.

Thank you SOOOoooo much, Justice Scalia...[/sarcasm]

Baraka_Guru

This isn't an oversimplified structuralist world of binary opposites. I'm afraid you might be disappointed.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

The_Dunedan

As do I. However, sometimes such animals have an unfortunate tendency to come -to- you, and frequently in packs.

ipollux

Perhaps. Point taken.

The_Dunedan

Sorry, double post.

dksuddeth

although SCOTUS did leave the door open for lots of regulation, it was held in the decision that DC MUST issue Heller his license. Along in the rest of the decision that a ban on 'commonly used' weapons cannot be constitutionally banned, a 7 round semi-auto magazine cannot be made illegal by trying to redefine a semi-auto that feeds a magazine from the bottom as a fully automatic weapon. If thats the case, I've got a Glock worth 15k in DC.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

smooth

I see not much has changed while I've been away.

You guys still post links that you think support your argument yet obviously haven't bothered to read.

The reason Heller was turned away was because he didn't bother to bring in his handgun to the police department, so it could be inspected and tested as per the registration process.


As for the difference between semi-automatic and revolvers, gun owners are going to find it very difficult since nothing indicates a right to a particular *type* of gun. Nonetheless, that's not why Heller was "denied" his application. Personally, I would prefer a revolver in the commission of a crime since it offers less chances at stray casings after a shooting, but there has been long standing restrictions on semi's based on all kinds of things...including how many bullets can be held. To my knowledge, there has been no successful challenge to restrictions against the extended clips gun owners used to have access to. At least in California we haven't had legal access to extended clips for many years now, we've always had to keep our guns unloaded and locked during travel, and maintain trigger locks during storage.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman